Master Index of Archived Threads


Glavine

patona314 Nov 01 2006 06:03 AM

According to ESPN radio (1050) and the Daily News, Tommy's getting 2 years - 25 Million to stay with the Mets.

soupcan Nov 01 2006 06:09 AM

2 years? So much for 'whatever my family wants'.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 01 2006 06:12 AM

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=5020&start=100

RealityChuck Nov 01 2006 06:58 AM

soupcan wrote: 2 years? So much for 'whatever my family wants'. My goodness. Do you mean to imply a player might say something in order to enhance his negotiating position? I'm shocked, shocked. Almost as shocked as when I discovered there was gambling going on here.

smg58 Nov 01 2006 07:15 AM

Not sure he's young enough for two years at that price. The Mets would only save $1.5M this year, to bring him back at $12.5M next year when he might not still be better in April 2008 than some of the young guys the Mets have in the system. I'm still going to argue that picking up the full option for this year would be cheaper in the long run.

Frayed Knot Nov 01 2006 07:24 AM

Remember that the Mets, in effect, owe Glavine $3mil from the "rebate" he gave them this past year - meaning that this reported $25mil is really $22 as far as what he's "earning" for the future. Still a bigger deal than I would have imagined, plus I didn't think that Glavine was even interested in committing to a 2nd year at this point.

Iubitul Nov 01 2006 07:26 AM

soupcan wrote: 2 years? So much for 'whatever my family wants'. How do we know what his family wants? We don't.

Elster88 Nov 01 2006 07:29 AM

Iubitul wrote: ="soupcan"]2 years? So much for 'whatever my family wants'. How do we know what his family wants? We don't. Tom: They're offering me a second year. Christine: So you can buy me more diamonds and shoes? Tom: How about diamond shoes? Christine: Call Omar back NOW.

cooby Nov 01 2006 07:30 AM

Iubitul wrote: ="soupcan"]2 years? So much for 'whatever my family wants'. How do we know what his family wants? We don't. ]When Glavine cleaned out his locker the day after the Mets' Game 7 ouster in the NLCS, he indicated his family's preference would be the primary factor in whether he remained a Met or returned to the Braves. Signing with Atlanta would allow Glavine to be near his wife, Christine, and his two sons at his home in Alpharetta, Ga. Maybe his family doesn't want him nearby?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 01 2006 07:31 AM

Or maybe they'd rather spend their summers in New York instead of Atlanta. I could certainly understand that.

Willets Point Nov 01 2006 07:33 AM

Atlanta is wicked hot.

patona314 Nov 01 2006 07:34 AM

as the immortal George Young once said... " when they say it's not about the money, it's about the money".

silverdsl Nov 01 2006 07:40 AM

Considering how easy it is for these folks to charter a private plane, or even own one to shuttle them back and forth, the distance between Atlanta and New York might not be much of a concern for the Glavines.

MFS62 Nov 01 2006 08:10 AM

Point of reference. Soon to be 44 (later this month) Jamie Moyer just signed a two year contract with the Phillies. They are similar types of pitcher. Neither relies on a fastball as their typical out pitch. Neither throws a slider (which puts stress on the elbow). Both feature changing speeds and control. Two years for Glavine doesn't upset me. It was a piece of business that Omar had to get out of the way so he could move on to improve the team in other areas. Later

Rockin' Doc Nov 01 2006 11:26 AM

MFS62 - "It was a piece of business that Omar had to get out of the way so he could move on to improve the team in other areas." I agree. I'm glad to have this taken care of so the Mets can concentrate their efforts on signing Zito or Schmidt.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 01 2006 11:27 AM

Well, as of now this is still just a rumor. It ain't "done" until it's done.

MFS62 Nov 01 2006 11:31 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: It ain't "done" until it's done. That just proves you're no Yogi Berra. Did you get my PM? Later

Willets Point Nov 01 2006 11:33 AM

silverdsl wrote: Considering how easy it is for these folks to charter a private plane, or even own one to shuttle them back and forth, the distance between Atlanta and New York might not be much of a concern for the Glavines. And with Glavine's penchant for early exits he can catch a flight down to Atlanta even on nights he pitches and still not get in too late.

MFS62 Nov 01 2006 11:34 AM

That's cold. Later

duan Nov 01 2006 12:06 PM

from Baseball Prospectus' 1996 Annual player comments: Tom Glavine: "One of the most cerebral players in the game. He lacks a single dominant pitch, doesn't have great control, gives up a hit an inning, doesn't hold runners on particularly well, and has always had trouble getting out left-handed hitters, a very unusual trait for a southpaw. With all that, he's been one of baseball's best starters throughout the decade. Glavine's the kind of player who could pitch into his 40's relying on nothing more than savvy and guile. Some might argue he already is."

Nymr83 Nov 01 2006 12:52 PM

the price for the 2nd year might be a little excessive but heck we're no small market team. the yankees have made worse deals and simply forgotten the guy existed ifhe stopped pitching well. i like this move alot, now we can hope to make the rotation BETTER than this past year instead of just hoping to keep it at the same level. Zito please.

Elster88 Nov 01 2006 12:57 PM

Rockin' Doc wrote: MFS62 - "It was a piece of business that Omar had to get out of the way so he could move on to improve the team in other areas." I agree. I'm glad to have this taken care of so the Mets can concentrate their efforts on signing Zito or Schmidt. Me too.

Willets Point Nov 01 2006 01:17 PM

duan wrote: Glavine's the kind of player who could pitch into his 40's relying on nothing more than savvy and guile. Some might argue he already is." There are folks who argued he was already in his forties in 1996. Shit, that makes him like 50-something now!!!

Benjamin Grimm Nov 02 2006 08:14 AM

Adam Rubin doing some backpedaling today. Says Glavine still hasn't made a decision, and that he and the Mets are talking about a one-year deal with an option for a second year.

86-Dreamer Nov 02 2006 08:34 AM

Anyone else think this was an odd inclusion by Rubin yesterday: "However, one other factor has since surfaced and appears to have altered the southpaw's mindset. Glavine, who has shared a stage with John Smoltz and Greg Maddux throughout their distinguished major-league careers, would prefer not to enter the Hall of Fame in the same class as Maddux, according to a source. Maddux figures to retire after the '07 season, meaning Glavine would need to pitch through '08 to ensure they are in separate classes if both are elected on the first ballot." Glavine has to be upset if he reads that since it makes him look childish. Have to wonder why Rubin would risk insulting someone genuinely thought of as a "good guy" over something that seems irrelevant at best.

iramets Nov 02 2006 08:40 AM

Don't the Mets understand that they got as far as they did into the playoffs [u:f15706090d]despite[/u:f15706090d] having an age-heavy staff, not [u:f15706090d]because[/u:f15706090d] of it? Glavine is expensive, and the money could be better spent elsewhere--Zito? Or other positions? Second base? Left field? Next year, they've got 1)Maine, who proved he deserves a full shot 2) Bannister, who pitched well until he pulled a hamstring 3) Perez, who also deserves a full shot Plus Pedro for part of the year, Plus El Duque (don't they have him signed, or available at least, for 2007?). Plus Humber. Plus a shot at Zito or other free agents. Plus Heilman, who wants a shot at a SP role, and could have it until he shows he's a starter or Humber or some other young guy shows he's ready for a shot. Plus Davey Williams. There's worse alternatives to pressing a young guy into the 5 slot of the rotation to see what he's got. The Mets were forced to do that all last year, and look how well that worked out. They don't need Glavine, not at that price. With their old SP, the Mets dodged a bullet, or maybe not, since the young starters came through and saved them from the bullet there at the end. (Wright sucking a big wet one in the post-season didn't help, either, I admit.) No to Glavine. If you want to waste several million dollars, Mets, you can just mail it in to me. You know, like the Mets' offense mailed in their job in in the playoffs, like that.

Willets Point Nov 02 2006 08:45 AM

Welcome iramets. With your viewpoint on Glavine et al, you will now have to convince everyone that you're not me.

Edgy DC Nov 02 2006 08:52 AM

iramets lives! Welcome abordick. The funny thing is the biggest disabilitites came from the guys who were closer to middle-aged as pitchers (Zambrano and Pedro) than the geezers (Glavine and Hernandez). There is the argument that old guys aren't more likely to get injured in any given year, but rather that they are simply more likely to have been injured, because every year sees 15% or so of the pitchers hit with a disabling injury. So a healthy 40 year-old at the start of a season, by this thinking, is no more likely to explode the ulna collateral ligament during the season than a healthy 30-year-old. What old guys are most likely to do is lose speed and stamina. Obviously, Hernandez and Glavine have largely learned to make up for the former with guile, and the Mets prepared for the latter with a deep pen.

soupcan Nov 02 2006 10:00 AM

I don't think the Mets need to save money to sign Zito. Paying Glavine for an extra year won't hamper their ability to sign Zito (assuming dollars are the only issue). The Mets are a wealthy team. They just have to decide if they want to spend for Zito, not where they're going to get the money from. Welcome to patona and iramets!

Valadius Nov 02 2006 10:08 AM

Welcome A-Bordick iramets!

MFS62 Nov 02 2006 10:12 AM

Welcome, iramets. Good first post. We hope to see many, many more like that from you. Later

Willets Point Nov 02 2006 10:19 AM

I was going to put in the first post logo but Edgy doesn't seem to be hosting it anymore.

Nymr83 Nov 02 2006 10:20 AM

]1)Maine, who proved he deserves a full shot 2) Bannister, who pitched well until he pulled a hamstring 3) Perez, who also deserves a full shot lets not go overboard here. Yes, Maine pitched well and deserves a rotation spot. But Bannister, while getting goodresults in a limited sample size, was letting runners on left and right. i wouldn't start him next year unless he has his walks down in the spring. Perez did NOTHING until the playoffs. while i do like the guy alot, i dont want to write him into the rotation just yet after the regular season he had this year. if we entered the year with Maine, Bannister, Perez, even as 3-4-5, i'd say we're not in very good shape. ](Wright sucking a big wet one in the post-season didn't help, either, I admit as opposed to Reyes, LoDuca, and everyone else not named Carlos? why the emphasis on Wright who wasn't even the worst of the bunch

MFS62 Nov 02 2006 10:25 AM

Nymr83 wrote: lets not go overboard here. Yes, Maine pitched well and deserves a rotation spot. But Bannister, while getting goodresults in a limited sample size, was letting runners on left and right. i wouldn't start him next year unless he has his walks down in the spring. His lack of control was a head scratcher. He had excellent BB/IP ratios every year in the minors. It could have been rookie jitters or the umps were squeezing a rookie. Either way, I liked the way he demonstrated toughness when he got out of those jams, and think he will show good-excellent control the next time around. Later

Nymr83 Nov 02 2006 10:29 AM

if he shows it in the spring, or if nobody else steps up, then fine. but i don't think he should automatically have a rotation spot, and neither should Perez. Maine should.

metirish Nov 09 2006 07:21 PM

] NEW YORK -- Mets pitcher Tom Glavine filed provisionally for free agency Thursday, still uncertain whether he wants to stay in New York or try to go back to the Atlanta Braves. Glavine has until Friday to exercise a $7.5 million player option, and the Mets have until Nov. 20 to exercise a $14 million team option. The options carry a $3 million buyout and both are likely to be declined. His agent, Gregg Clifton, has had preliminary discussions with the Mets about a new deal. San Diego left-hander David Wells, another Clifton client, also filed Thursday. A total of 171 players have filed since the World Series, and eight more potentially are eligible to file by Saturday's deadline. Cubs right-hander Wade Miller, who had filed Oct. 30, agreed Thursday to a one-year contract to remain in Chicago. Free agents can start discussing money with all teams beginning Sunday, the day before the annual general managers' meetings open in Naples, Fla. Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

DocTee Nov 10 2006 08:16 AM

Glavine files, says he's only got one more season in him (according to Marty Noble). If that's true, sweetening the pot with a second year probably won't make much of a difference-- me thinks he heads back to Atlanta.

smg58 Nov 10 2006 08:22 AM

So the initial rumor was wrong? That's so unusual. I still think biting the bullet for this year and picking up the option will be cheaper in the long run. Pelfrey could spend a full year in AAA and fill that spot very cheaply next year. Otherwise we'd have to acquire two top starters, which could be difficult unless we overspend. We still have control of Glavine; I see no reason to make the offseason more stressful than it needs to be.

Frayed Knot Nov 10 2006 08:31 AM

The filing had to be done simply to keep the paperwork in place and his options open. It doesn't really change anything. There's only been that one story about him getting two years (from Adam Rubin in the NYDN) and that got backed off of pretty quickly. Most reports have them getting together on a 1-year deal at a point somewhere between the two option figures (around $12mil) if he decides to stay -- and that $12 is essentially $9 plus the money he "rebated" the team from last season. Of course the one thing we haven't heard so far is whether his supposed only other acceptable destination even wants him. With a strict budget and a fairly expensive stable of starters already: Smoltz, Hampton, Hudson, Thomson; it's questionable whether Atlanta can afford to pay him even if they do decide they want him.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 10 2006 08:56 AM

I'm kind of indifferent to Glavine's staying or leaving at this point, and I think if he wants to go, the Mets will have no trouble spending whatever it would take to have retained him on talent that might not be directly comparable but also won't be 41 years old. I was a little more emotional over their parting with Leiter a few years back but turns out that was the precise moment to have done that. The thing with signing Glavine again is that it guarantees that if he craps out, he'll crap out wearing our clothes.

Willets Point Nov 10 2006 02:37 PM

Au revoir, Tom.

Centerfield Nov 10 2006 02:46 PM

Willets Point wrote: Au revoir, Tom. Is this just wishful thinking?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 10 2006 02:48 PM

Yes. He's not even eligible to sign with the Braves yet.

Frayed Knot Nov 10 2006 02:55 PM

]I was a little more emotional over their parting with Leiter a few years back but turns out that was the precise moment to have done that. The thing with signing Glavine again is that it guarantees that if he craps out, he'll crap out wearing our clothes. Leiter had a longer tenure and more "big moments" as a Met than Glavine, but was also more clearly outta gas by the time he was sent packing compared to how Tommy is now - so I don't have a lot of fear with one more season.

metirish Nov 10 2006 03:25 PM

Just heard on the FAN,Glavine officially turned down his $7.5 million option today.....

smg58 Nov 10 2006 06:32 PM

Hardly a shock. The ball, predictably, is in Minaya's court.

metirish Nov 24 2006 12:25 PM

Tick-tock Tommy..the longer this goes on the more I think he'll go back to the Braves,read an article in an Atlanta paper where the guy was saying it's the right time for him to come back,the readers response was typicaly split.

cleonjones11 Nov 24 2006 06:37 PM

Tom Glavine...kiss my Met ass goodbye!!!!

Edgy DC Nov 25 2006 08:37 PM

You don't have a Met ass. He does.

metirish Nov 27 2006 09:44 AM

If this comes down to money,and no reason to think that it won't then it's back to the Mets,Smoltz will make $8 million next season,will the Braves pay Glavine more,and it's not like Glavine and the GM are best friends,Mets ill pay more and probably offer two years.....

heep Nov 27 2006 10:26 AM

I believe the no-trade clause will factor heavily into Tom's decision, and in our favor. Tom wants a no-trade clause, and if he does not get one from Atlanta, then I think he will come back for another year. Notwithstanding Tom'a return, I would pursue Zito, but offer something solid, not 15+ per year.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 10:32 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 27 2006 01:40 PM

Glavine won't need much of one from New York. He'll be a ten-and-five guy at the end of this season. And a new contract (could be wrong here) should protect him for the first half of this season. Part of me sees the Yankees swooping in to make a grab at him.

Willets Point Nov 27 2006 10:36 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Part of me sees the Yankees swooping in to make a grab at him. T'would be awesome to see him melting down on the mound for the Yankees.

Centerfield Nov 27 2006 01:24 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Part of me sees the Yankees swooping in to make a grab at him. Which part?

HahnSolo Nov 29 2006 01:10 PM

braves.scout.com has "breaking news" on Glavine. But I'm not a member and can't access the story. Anyone with access care to enlighten?

Edgy DC Nov 29 2006 01:28 PM

Last word I read is that the Braves have approached him and that Glavine had promised to give the Mets an answer before the winter meetings start and their attention has to focus drunken racist superscouts.

metirish Nov 29 2006 01:48 PM

I don't have access but I went to another Braves message board and people with access are posting this.... ] Bill Shanks is reporting Braves are about to sign Tom Glavine to contract in 7-8 million dollar range with option for 08 http://www.bravesbeat.com/boards/showthread.php?t=23136

Willets Point Nov 29 2006 01:55 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 29 2006 02:14 PM

It's like Christmas in November. I tingle with anticipation.

Edgy DC Nov 29 2006 02:12 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 29 2006 02:18 PM

bravesgirl5 writes: i signed up for scout.com five minutes ago just to see that article. and to tell you the truth i was disapointed! i thought he was going to provide a real answer! darnit! Somewhere, P.T. Barnum smiles.

metirish Nov 29 2006 02:13 PM

Don't get too excited Willets, the poeple on that board think Shanks if full of crap..

Willets Point Nov 29 2006 02:17 PM

'Twouldn't be the first time I got coal in my stocking (or an overpaid has-been pitcher clogging the rotation).

Johnny Dickshot Nov 29 2006 02:17 PM

As if it'd be kept a secret if he had signed.

Frayed Knot Nov 29 2006 02:28 PM

Boy, wouldn't that just solve all our pitching woes if true!

metirish Nov 29 2006 02:30 PM

A part of me doubts Glavine would leave a boat load of Mets money to go back to the Braves for less,if he does then good for him...

Willets Point Nov 29 2006 03:10 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Boy, wouldn't that just solve all our pitching woes if true! Well, hopefully it would force Omar to commit to building the rotation without pitchers who were great for the Braves and Yankees in 1998. I actually would have supported signing Glavine, but after signing Orlando Hernandez I can't be in favor of it assuming the Mets want to be serious about contending next season on something more than wishes and faded glory. Besides, this way the Mets get to bat against Glavine, which should be fun.

seawolf17 Nov 29 2006 04:35 PM

I would not be against hating Tom Glavine again.

OlerudOwned Nov 29 2006 05:31 PM

Losing Glavine could make the Mets more open to overspending for Zito, which is why I don't like this. If Glavine was retained, they could've been more patient, explored trade routes, etc. Now, I think there may be an added sense of urgency. (Or at least there should be. The staff is evaporating).

Rockin' Doc Nov 29 2006 07:04 PM

Somehow, I'm much less intrigued than Willets over the Mets potential starting rotation next season. If Glavine elects to return to the Braves, we're currently looking at a pretty shaky group that won't scare opponents. RHP - John Maine RHP - Orlando Hernandez LHP - Oliver Perez RHP - Mike Pelfry RHP - Brian Bannister/RHP Philip Humber/RHP Alay Soler Zito and or Schmidt become increasingly more valuable to the Mets. I think that the likelihood they will overpay, in what is already a ridiculous market, for free agent pitching. Or they will likely give up too much in trade for an established starter. There's still a lot of time left this off season, but this team is starting to look far less formidable than I had hoped.

metirish Nov 29 2006 07:11 PM

Schmidt apparently has zero interest in coming to the east coast,read that the Cubs offered him $45 million for 4 years I think..

iramets Nov 29 2006 07:15 PM

Did having half your starting rotation self-destruct show you something about the fragility of older pitchers? I'm starting to picture Willets Point as this crewcut blond woman (Susan Powter?) telling us all to "Stop The Insanity!" I've always wondered how you would literally Stop the Insanity, anyway. It's not as if schizophrenics one day decide, "Okay, that's it, I'm quitting today," is it? Signing more old guys to multiyear, expensive contracts may not literally be insane, but it must stop. Willets Point, you go, girl! What was Susan Powter anyway? All I remember is she was loud and abrasive--was she a diet guru? Exercise? Yoga? Yogurt? Self-actualization?

Nymr83 Nov 29 2006 07:44 PM

the Mets look stuck though. its a good thing they have some depth or they'd be looking at Jose Lima as serious rotation option, the Mets NEED to get Zito/Schmidt or make a trade for an equivalent guy. I'd like to bring Glavine back for 1 more year but he's not the answer by himself.

soupcan Nov 29 2006 08:52 PM

Gammons was on WFAN this afternoon and he said that 'the word out of Atlanta is' that Glavine's preference is to pitch for the Braves but there's a question as to whether or not the Braves can come up with enough money to make it worth his while. Good riddance I say. I don't understand all the hullabaloo. He's an above average 41 year-old 5 inning pitcher. Yes it would force the Mets to overpay for Zito but so what? I look forward to the easy wins against Atlanta next year with Glavine on the mound.

Frayed Knot Nov 29 2006 09:15 PM

Am I the only one who noticed that Glavine was our best starter last year? Now I'm not suggesting giving him a long-term contract at this point, but w/El Duque even older, Pedro already out thru at least July, Perez an untamed maybe, Bannister a virtual unknown, Pelfrey & Humber w/only a few ML innings between them, and Maine a half-year wonder so far (and you wonder if he's got another half) I don't get the view that Glavine departure is some kind of addition by subtraction.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 29 2006 09:28 PM

He's obviously not addition by subtrraction. I think flirting with the Braves is a ploy to help Glavine get more $$/years from the Mets while reconciling his Atlanta departure by drawing what ought to be an inferior deal. I think the Mets are playing it right -- they haven't extended him out to stuid $$/years (yet) and they're asking him to make up his mind soon because if he doesn;t come along they've got other plans to pursue. Anyway, this'll all be over soon.

Rockin' Doc Nov 29 2006 09:33 PM

Frayed Knot - "Am I the only one who noticed that Glavine was our best starter last year?" No.

cooby Nov 29 2006 09:37 PM

Count me too. Our present pitching staff is scary. And I don't mean scary good.

attgig Nov 29 2006 09:42 PM

iramets wrote: What was Susan Powter anyway? All I remember is she was loud and abrasive--was she a diet guru? Exercise? Yoga? Yogurt? Self-actualization? huh, apparently, she's back... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAvq3dI7DYo and apparently, according to espn, glavine still hasn't gotten offered anything by the braves... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2680548

Edgy DC Nov 29 2006 10:28 PM

Am I the only one who noticed Glavine, rather than be the protype for a five-and-fly pitcher, led the team in innings per start? Pitcher Starts IP IP/Start Glavine 32 198.00 6.19 Trachsel 30 164.67 5.49 Martinez 23 132.00 5.74 Hernandez 20 116.67 5.83 Maine 15 89.00 5.93 Soler 8 45.00 5.63 Perez 7 36.67 5.24 Bannister 6 34.00 5.67 Williams 5 28.00 5.60 Pelfrey 4 21.33 5.33 Zambrano 5 21.33 4.27 Lima 4 17.33 4.33 Gonzalez 3 14.00 4.67

iramets Nov 30 2006 03:46 AM

Slightly misleading chart, in that it's not a descending chart of IP/Start(i.e. Maine ranks second, just a hair behind Glavine, and not fifth, where your chart which is ranked in order of "starts" has him, with 5.93 to Glavine's 6.19). My subjective impression was that Randolph was cutting the veteran starters some slack--i.e. he'd pull Maine or Bannister early, at some confidence-building point, where'd let the vets pitch deeper into the game, given the same results up to that point. Not that it's a terrible strategy, but it's a judgment call on the manager's part as well as a statistical measurement of stamina.

iramets Nov 30 2006 04:47 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: He's obviously not addition by subtrraction. Of course he is. The Mets would be subtracting Glavine's salary from their payroll. It's the very definition of subtraction. If they could sign Glavine for cheap, he'd be okay to sign, but they can't. This is a point in Glavine's tenure where they have the option of saying, "No, we're not interested in investing more money in Tom Glavine's future." They should take advantage of it, instead of pretending that Glavine's been a great pitcher, or a great value for the money, for the past four years. He hasn't. He's had good moments and bad ones. He's had strong years and weak ones. So has Oliver Perez, who's cheaper and younger and has a far more promising upside. It's not as if the Mets have a young underpaid staff so they can afford to take on one big salary. They're already overpaying for Pedro and overpaying for Hernandez. Stop the Insanity already! I'm not even sure it's insanity as much as it is a lack of confidence in their ability to judge a young pitcher's ability. It's one thing to point to Glavine's (or Pedro's or Hernandez's) lifetime w-l record and use it as a shield if they prove ineffective. "Hey, Tom Glavine's won almost 300 games--who knew he'd be unable to get batters out in 2007? We did the perfect move in signing him to a 50 bazillion dollar contract, except that he suddenly and inexplicably stopped winning games." Whereas if a kid pitcher is ineffective all you can justify your misplaced confidence in him by is your own judgment that has been proven wrong. I'd have been comfortable going into the 2007 season with a rotation of Maine and Perez and Bannister and Pelfrey and Humber (and a rotation payroll under, what, 2 mil?) with Pedro in reserve. Each of these guys (well, maybe not Pelfrey and Humber so much) have given me reason to think optimistically of them, while the older guys are just disasters waiting to happen. It's just a matter of time until each of them hits the Wall of Suck, and I want to see them SPLAT! in a diffferent uniform.

Rockin' Doc Nov 30 2006 05:17 AM

According to an AP article on ESPN, Glavine and his agent haven't received an offer from the Braves. Glavine yet to receive Braves offer; Mets return likely NEW YORK -- Tom Glavine hasn't received a contract offer from the Atlanta Braves as he nears a decision on where he wants to play next season, a development that has increased the likelihood he will return to the New York Mets. Glavine's agent, Gregg Clifton, said the two-time Cy Young Award winner has told the Mets he would make a decision by the winter meetings, which start Monday. Glavine said he wanted to spend time with his family before deciding whether to stay with the Mets, who signed him before the 2003 season, or return to the Braves, his team from 1987-2002. Clifton said he has spoken with Braves general manager John Schuerholz several times about Glavine. "He can't even evaluate that they really want him if he doesn't have an offer," Clifton said Wednesday. "The bottom line is, we're waiting to see if Atlanta wants to make a proposal to us. We've had really nice dialogue on a few occasions and we've kind of left it: We're open. We're waiting for John to give us a call if he would like to." Under a preset arrangement, Glavine and the Mets both declined 2007 options this month. Clifton said Glavine originally thought his decision would be based on whether he wanted to return to the Atlanta area, where his family lives. "As time has gone on, I think it's actually been the potential pull and the desire to go back to New York and be a Met that has delayed this process and further complicated his decision-making," Clifton said. Schuerholz never comments on free agents until after Atlanta has a signed agreement with them. The Mets have said repeatedly that they hope Glavine decides to stay. Clifton and the Mets agreed that they wouldn't start negotiations on a new contract until after Glavine makes a decision that he wants to return to New York. "They're showing an incredible amount of class," Clifton said, "because at the end of the day they have allowed him to do everything he asked to, which was to go home, to get back into the normal family mode and give him an opportunity to really think this thing through. I think it's working to their advantage, to be honest with you." Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 05:50 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 04 2006 01:48 PM

They haven't given anybody money, they pay it. ]Slightly misleading chart, in that it's not a descending chart of IP/Start(i.e. Maine ranks second, just a hair behind Glavine, and not fifth, where your chart which is ranked in order of "starts" has him, with 5.93 to Glavine's 6.19). My subjective impression was that Randolph was cutting the veteran starters some slack--i.e. he'd pull Maine or Bannister early, at some confidence-building point, where'd let the vets pitch deeper into the game, given the same results up to that point. Not that it's a terrible strategy, but it's a judgment call on the manager's part as well as a statistical measurement of stamina. I don't know why "starts" is in quotes. Were they only so-called starts? Sorry about the misleading table. I'm not trying to present Glavine as a workhorse, but only trying to defend him against the charge that he particularly forces the Mets to give him short workdays. That's clearly not true. And his lead over the number-two guy on the staff is far greater than any of the gaps between the other players until you get to the other side of the bell curve. And it's largely irrelevant these days. Teams don't look for complete games any longer. Pitching into the seventh inning --- a feat that only he did on average among Met starters --- is all they ask. Pitcher Starts IP IP/Start Glavine 32 198.00 6.19 Maine 15 89.00 5.93 Hernandez 20 116.67 5.83 Martinez 23 132.00 5.74 Bannister 6 34.00 5.67 Soler 8 45.00 5.63 Williams 5 28.00 5.60 Trachsel 30 164.67 5.49 Pelfrey 4 21.33 5.33 Perez 7 36.67 5.24 Gonzalez 3 14.00 4.67 Lima 4 17.33 4.33 Zambrano 5 21.33 4.27

Willets Point Nov 30 2006 06:40 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Am I the only one who noticed that Glavine was our best starter last year? ... I don't get the view that Glavine departure is some kind of addition by subtraction. Maybe you don't get it because no one has actually stated this as a case of "addition by subtraction" until you mentioned it. As stated above -- and ignored by you in favor of mischaracterizing my position with your typical condescension -- I was in favor of bringing back Glavine to be the veteran presence in next year. The problem is that Omar (foolishly) signed Orlando Hernandez to a two year contract. The Mets cannot afford to compound that mistake by building their rotation around two (or more) aging former star pitchers in decline. The NL East will not be a cake walk next season. The Phillies were great and you can expect them to get better. The Marlins caught everyone by surprise last season and should continue to be challenging next season. And the Braves faded last season, but I suspect they'll be back in form in the coming year. Hell, even the Nationals while not very good are not an "easy win". In this state of competition the Mets may finish first but could easily finish fourth if they chose to rest on their laurels. Thus Omar needs to aggressively rebuild the rotation through trades, free agent signings, investigating the international market and developing young pitchers from within the system. Starting out with a rotation lead by Glavine, Hernandez, and a questionably healthy Martinez and hoping that because they used to be great and have shown flashes of their former brilliance in their time as Mets just seems like a cross-your-fingers-and-hope-for-the-best type of plan, and I cannot support that. As you state Glavine was our best starter last season, and if this is the case then that's a sign of trouble. If the Mets retain Glavine it must be in a situation where he is the 4th or 5tht best pitcher in the rotation, not the ace, because Glavine's best is just not good enough for a team that wants to win the division and hopefully a championship.

soupcan Nov 30 2006 07:10 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Am I the only one who noticed that Glavine was our best starter last year? Now I'm not suggesting giving him a long-term contract at this point, but w/El Duque even older, Pedro already out thru at least July, Perez an untamed maybe, Bannister a virtual unknown, Pelfrey & Humber w/only a few ML innings between them, and Maine a half-year wonder so far (and you wonder if he's got another half) I don't get the view that Glavine departure is some kind of addition by subtraction. Just because he was the best of a mediocre lot doesn't equate him with being an ace. Besides the fact that the guy just doesn't seem to want to be here. This is hard for me to fathom. We all know the guy is pitching simply to get 300 wins. Don't you think, taking into account that he's rarely going to pitch past the 6th inning anyway, that he'd have a better and easier shot of picking those 11 wins up with a team that basically dominated the division last year with its offense? I do.

metirish Nov 30 2006 07:14 AM

At this point I am beyond caring about Glavine,I really don't want a guy back who might be only coming back because the Braves didn't make an offer to him......

Frayed Knot Nov 30 2006 07:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2006 07:40 AM

]in favor of mischaracterizing my position I sincerely apoligize for my misinterpreting the approximate 75 times in the last few months that you've stated (in one form or another) how much Glavine's presence has been a drag on this team and/or your desire to see him pitch anywhere but at Shea next year as an implication that his banishment would be an improvement to the team. I don't know what I was thinking.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 07:18 AM

metirish wrote: At this point I am beyond caring about Glavine,I really don't want a guy back who might be only coming back because the Braves didn't make an offer to him...... I don't think that's really the context we should be looking at this.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 07:23 AM

]Besides the fact that the guy just doesn't seem to want to be here. Why do you say that? ]This is hard for me to fathom. It's hard for me to conclude. ]We all know the guy is pitching simply to get 300 wins. And to make a boatload of money. ]Don't you think, taking into account that he's rarely going to pitch past the 6th inning anyway, that he'd have a better and easier shot of picking those 11 wins up with a team that basically dominated the division last year with its offense? I do. How deeply do we want to look at that accusation of him as a short worker. It's getting strange now.

cooby Nov 30 2006 07:25 AM

This wouldn't be nearly such an anxious moment for us if the Mets were giving some clue that they had an ace up their sleeve. Forgive the pun.

KC Nov 30 2006 07:31 AM

I don't find Mr. Knot condescending.

soupcan Nov 30 2006 07:44 AM

Edgy DC wrote: ]Besides the fact that the guy just doesn't seem to want to be here. Why do you say that? Maybe 'doesn't want to be here' is a bit harsh. How about 'indifferent to where he plays'? Edgy DC wrote: ]This is hard for me to fathom. It's hard for me to conclude. It's hard for me to understand why a guy who so badly wants that 300th win wouldn't want to pitch for a team that appears to give him a much better and easier shot at doing it. Edgy DC wrote: ]We all know the guy is pitching simply to get 300 wins. And to make a boatload of money. Agreed. Edgy DC wrote: ]Don't you think, taking into account that he's rarely going to pitch past the 6th inning anyway, that he'd have a better and easier shot of picking those 11 wins up with a team that basically dominated the division last year with its offense? I do. How deeply do we want to look at that accusation of him as a short worker. It's getting strange now. Your table shows him as averaging 6.19 innings per start.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 07:48 AM

Sure, but your implication seems to be that 6.19 is particularly bad. In fact, in 2006, it's pretty fly for an old guy.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2006 08:04 AM

with 22 quality starts last year (6th in the NL, 1 behind cy young winner chris carpenter, as many as carlos zambrano, and two more than dontrelle willis), i don't think tom glavine was all too much of a drag on the team last year, nor do i thik that characterizing his performance as mediocre is all that fair. was it great? no. mindblowing? no. dominating? no. but it was still good, and certainly better than average or mediocre. that said, bringing him back is a good move only depending on the money and the years, and what the rest of the rotation looks like. if we sign glavine, and fold up our tents and go home, then we're making a huge mistake. but then, we'd be making the same mistake if we just signed barry zito, and folded up our tents and went home.

Frayed Knot Nov 30 2006 08:11 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2006 08:18 AM

Not just for an old guy but pretty much all around. A quick-n-dirty search of NL ERA leaders (theoretically, at least, the best of the bunch) showed most averaging in the mid-6's for IP/start meaning that for the most part he's averaging an out, or sometimes two, less than the supposed cream of the crop. IOW, not much indicates that his replacement is going to give you much more. Only Brandon Webb, btw, hit 7+ Look, if he leaves, he leaves, I'm not going to get all broken up over it. But I think they're going to be looking for a starter in addition to Glavine anyway, meaning that his departure would leave them searching for two. And in a staff decorated with question marks & injuries I fail to see the logic in celebrating the potential departure of the most consistent (and unijured) guy from last season ... especially when I think part of the reason childishly involves lingering issues of Brave cooties.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 08:15 AM

We saved ourselves last year with redundancy. Old guys came, young guys came, foreign imports came, flyers came, enigmas came, retreads came. You open the season with the old guys because they can't be warehoused. But the team wasn't married to them and moved one when it came time to move on. John Maine, by Marty Noble's estimation (and I agree), opened the season at about 13th on the Mets starting pitching depth chart, and finished it by nearly saving our bacon. The trick is making several deft decisions and depending on none of them to come through.

iramets Nov 30 2006 08:37 AM

Edgy DC wrote: We saved ourselves last year with redundancy. . Could we possibly learn the concept of 'quitting while you're ahead'? The Mets rolled the dice on old guys, and made it (or almost made it) before their arms gave out and the younger starters stepped in just fine. Why doubledown on the old guys to give you ANOTHER decent year (at top frickin dollar, mind you) instead of turning the reins over, where possible, to the younger guys. Now theyre committed to Pedro and Hernandez,--Save a few bucks on starting pitching, see what guys like Maine and Perez and Bannister can do, and spend that money on some other needs of which there are plenty.

soupcan Nov 30 2006 08:42 AM

I suppose I'm just saying that I don't think he's irreplaceble and if he chooses to go then so be it and I'm not going to cry and wring my hands over it.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 08:54 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2006 09:04 AM

Agreed witch soup. Every personnel decision is a roll of the dice. The Mets have plenty of young pitchers that may or may not be ready to step in. Turning the reins over to them is also a roll of the dice, with less redundancy behiind it. I'm certain that those that perform this season will see their roles increase. What do you want the Mets to save their money for? What are the other needs, which are plenty? I think most people agree that starting pitching is their current need. Two young all stars are in the infield, plus one guy a season removed from being sixth in the league in MVP voting. One kind of young all-star (and MVP candidate) is in the outfield plus one guy who is old but threw up all-star years in 2004 and 2005 and slugged .571 when healthy this year. The catcher is an all-star. The bullpen was the class of the league last year. We've perhaps lost some righthanded depth but there's still plenty of time to rejigger there and to see what we have.

Centerfield Nov 30 2006 08:55 AM

I'm with soup. I'd like to have him back, but if he goes, so be it. But, if he signed with Atlanta and his salary forced them to dump Hudson, that would be very very good.

Rotblatt Nov 30 2006 09:14 AM

I don't think losing Glavine would be the end of the world, but I'd rather have him in 2007 than, say, Meche and maybe even Lilly. At the very least, he's a dependable, above-average starter. A Barry Zito, if you will, but we'll get him for less money and we'll have to guarantee fewer years. And I'm with Edgy that our top priority should be pitching, and to its credit, that's what our front office has done. They scrimped a little with LF, and went hard after Matsuzaka and the soon-to-be MFY scum. I expect they'll go strong after Zito, too. Anyway, I would be okay if we went into 2007 with what we've currently got. Between Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, Maine & Perez, we've got a few wild cards, and we'd always have Milledge in our back pocket if we needed to trade up for some pitching. I'd prefer to bring back Glavine, or sign a Lilly or Zito to bring some stability to the rotation, but we're not in bad shape, IMO.

sharpie Nov 30 2006 09:17 AM

Let's not forget that we may have a pretty good mid-season pickup in Pedro.

iramets Nov 30 2006 10:47 AM

Edgy DC wrote: What do you want the Mets to save their money for? What are the other needs, which are plenty? I think most people agree that starting pitching is their current need. Okay, let's stipulate that starting pitching is need #1. But the back end of the rotation is where we're strong. Glavine is only at the front end because that's where we're weak. He's a good # 3 starter, and a very good #4. As staff ace, not so much. We've just had a four-year sample of his abilities: he's gone an average of 12-12 with an ERA just under 4 over the last four years. Is this what you're seeking from your staff ace? Do you expect Glavine to show signs of improvement over the past 4 years in his 40s? That's improbable. If you sign him at staff-ace prices, eventually you're going to get burned badly--if the Braves want to offer him a staff-ace salary, let them. I'd focus on signing Zito, or pulling off a trade. This is a chance to make the rotation younger--I'd go for it. Maybe a trade for a rotation anchor weakens your offensive lineup--I'd use Glavine's salary to pay for whoever you're filling that hole with. Unless you're arguing that the Mets have an unlimited budget, I'm hoping to use the budget to get the best players. I don't think Glavine is the best player they can get for a superstar rotation anchor salary right now, and that's what he's seeking. Pass. If you don't want to stipulate that the rotation is the #1 priority, then you'd argue that we need to shore up the bullpen and get help at 2B and in the corner OF positions. When your corner outfielders are batting 6 or 7 in the lineup, and aren't gifted fielders besides, you've got problems.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 11:10 AM

I don't think Glavine is getting top dollar, nor do I think of him as an ace and I think this conversation shouldn't be framed that way. As far as we know, the Braves haven't offered him squat.

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 11:22 AM

Anybody want to guess?

cooby Nov 30 2006 11:25 AM

what are we guessing? Did something happen?

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 11:27 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2006 11:28 AM

Eh, nuttin. ira just argues like Bret is all, uses similar terms and assumptions and takes a similar position.

heep Nov 30 2006 11:27 AM

It is almost December, and the Braves have not made him an offer...hmmmm

Rockin' Doc Nov 30 2006 11:36 AM

I haven't seen anyone here advocating Glavine as the ace of the staff. I think he is a pretty good second or third guy in the rotation. Whether the Mets resign Glavine or not, they need to get more starting pitching in my opinion. I also have far less confidence in Pedro's successful return next season. Between his toe problems, shoulder surgery, and other assorted injuries he experienced I think Pedro's days of dominance are far behind him. I'm doubtful he really has much more left in the tank for the future than does Glavine. I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't count on too much from Pedro next season.

cooby Nov 30 2006 11:42 AM

="Edgy DC"]Eh, nuttin. ira just argues like Bret is all, uses similar terms and assumptions and takes a similar position. Oh, I get ya. No ira makes much more sense than Bret, (not that that's hard) and has some people skills to boot.

Frayed Knot Nov 30 2006 11:50 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2006 12:03 PM

="iramets"]I'd have been comfortable going into the 2007 season with a rotation of Maine and Perez and Bannister and Pelfrey and Humber You do realize that this backs are absolutely ready for prime-time 'win now' offense with 5 unproven, or barely proven, hurlers with even worse in reserve don't you? ALL spent time in the minors this year and several in various rehabs (injuries: they're not just for seniors anymore) and they totaled just 32 starts this season (approx the amount ONE pitcher should have) and only Perez had any coming into the year. Specifically: - Maine has part of one good season under his belt and can scarely be considered a sure thing - Bannister was injured most of the season and has just 6 ML starts under his belt while giving up 1.5 baserunners/inning - Humber has never started an ML game in his life (2 IP) is coming off major surgery and probably won't be ready for the full-time innings required of a year-long regular starter - Pelfrey had 4 ML starts with mixed effectiveness (at which point he lost the spot) in what was his first year as a pro at any level - and Perez blew hot & cold w/streaks of wildness while searching for the form that once made him exciting 3 sesons ago I'm all for giving "the kids" shots too. But depending on a whole crop of them to man your staff is a helluva lot more risky than giving a 1-year deal to a future HoF pitcher who's never been injured and is coming off a good season. The White House press corps hot on the trail of a scandal has fewer questions than the above crew.

smg58 Nov 30 2006 11:51 AM

The Mets need to make a fair analysis not only of Pedro's chances, but also Pelfrey's readiniess at some point next year. They could throw the #5 spot up for grabs between Vargas/Bannister/Williams/Soler and hope one of them can hold the spot until either Pedro or Pelfrey can take it. Then it becomes a question of living with a 2-4 of Hernandez/Maine/Perez if you get the right #1. So question #1 is, is the right ace out there at a non-ludicrous price? If the answer to that is yes, then I think we can send Glavine on his way. If not, then I think you take Glavine back and deal for another pitcher who's at least as good.

metirish Nov 30 2006 11:58 AM

] So question #1 is, is the right ace out there at a non-ludicrous price? Only by trade I would think......Zito will get paid as a # starter but is he one?,depends on what team he goes too,Willis is what I want for xmas.

metirish Nov 30 2006 12:35 PM

Breaking News on Glavine...... [url=http://images.net3media.com/funnyfreepics/grannys_weed.jpg]follow the link for news[/url]

cooby Nov 30 2006 12:49 PM

metirish, not to be a complainer, but this link doesn't work

metirish Nov 30 2006 12:53 PM

cooby wrote: metirish, not to be a complainer, but this link doesn't work yeah I know that....Cooby,I'm surprised with you...:)

Edgy DC Nov 30 2006 12:55 PM

And it seems so innocent, not like a setup at all.

soupcan Nov 30 2006 12:56 PM

I don't get it.

cooby Nov 30 2006 12:57 PM

Well, the link saying something about a granny did kinda give me a clue

metirish Nov 30 2006 12:59 PM

soupcan wrote: I don't get it. Just taking the piss,Shanks yesteday on braves.scout.com had the headline.....Breaking News on Glavine.....you have to be a paid member to access it.....and there was no news in the article....

cooby Nov 30 2006 12:59 PM

soupcan wrote: I don't get it. yay...I'm not all alone

soupcan Nov 30 2006 01:03 PM

Sorry my bad. I've got a splitting headache and it's interefering with all rational thought.

Iubitul Nov 30 2006 01:40 PM

Well, you probably caught a draft from showing up naked in the other thread...

metsmarathon Nov 30 2006 01:40 PM

iramets wrote: I don't think Glavine is the best player they can get for a superstar rotation anchor salary right now, and that's what he's seeking. i don't think that i've seen that anywhere. in fact, i'd be surprised if he got even close to mussina money ($11.5M x 2 years) i fully expect glavine to sign for about $9M, maybe $10M, for one or two years. and in this market, that's not ace money. its #3 starter money. obviously, if it comes down to signing tom glavine for $14M a year, or letting him walk, he walks. no question. but i hardly think that it'll come down to that.

iramets Nov 30 2006 01:59 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: ="iramets"]I'd have been comfortable going into the 2007 season with a rotation of Maine and Perez and Bannister and Pelfrey and Humber You do realize that this backs are absolutely ready for prime-time 'win now' offense with 5 unproven, or barely proven, hurlers with even worse in reserve don't you? But you've got Hernandez already signed for 2007, and Pedro's going to get a bunch of starts, and I'm advocating signing Zito, if possible, and/or getting a first rank younger pitcher in a deal. Maine's earned a full shot already, I think Perez has too, and I'd give one to Bannister as well. If one of those falters, you've got Pelfrey, and if another falters you've got Humber. I believe that Glavine is expecting front-line starter money, not completely unreasonably given his w-l record last year, and will try to get at least two years on his next deal. That money could be better spent elsewhere.If we can sign him for middle (or back) of the rotation money, I'd go for that, but I don't believe that's what he's looking for.

Frayed Knot Nov 30 2006 02:17 PM

Well, throwing Pedro, Zito & El Duque into the mix makes the scenario a whole lot different than the orignial statement of wanting to go with a rotation made up strictly of those 5 untested pitchers (Bannister, Humber, Pelfrey, Perez, Maine). No one is saying not to give any of all of them a shot, only that a rotation where the majority have [u:4a34e9cef7]less than 100 ML IPs combined[/u:4a34e9cef7] isn't a recipe for success. And the problem w/saying that saving Glavine money for someone else is that someone else halfway decent is likely to cost in the range as Glavine. Lilly & Meche, for instance, are being talked about in the 4x$10 range. I'm open to alternatives, I just don't think that the simply swapping him for Mr. N. E. Body is automatically a net plus.

Nymr83 Nov 30 2006 02:33 PM

iramets wrote: ="Frayed Knot"] iramets wrote: I'd have been comfortable going into the 2007 season with a rotation of Maine and Perez and Bannister and Pelfrey and Humber You do realize that this backs are absolutely ready for prime-time 'win now' offense with 5 unproven, or barely proven, hurlers with even worse in reserve don't you? But you've got Hernandez already signed for 2007, and Pedro's going to get a bunch of starts, and I'm advocating signing Zito, if possible, and/or getting a first rank younger pitcher in a deal. Maine's earned a full shot already, I think Perez has too, and I'd give one to Bannister as well. If one of those falters, you've got Pelfrey, and if another falters you've got Humber. I believe that Glavine is expecting front-line starter money, not completely unreasonably given his w-l record last year, and will try to get at least two years on his next deal. That money could be better spent elsewhere.If we can sign him for middle (or back) of the rotation money, I'd go for that, but I don't believe that's what he's looking for. ok 1 at a time here... so what if you'v got hernandez signed? he's not very good. you can't count on Pedro getting "a bunch of starts" or on those starts being of his usual quality. yeah, Maine has earned a shot. Perez hasn't, one playoff game doesn't make you a #2 starter (as he would be with that circus of a rotation listed above) Perez should ideally be one of several candidates for 4/5. Bannister was smoke and mirrors, like Perez he's a 5th starter candidate not a guy to be relied upon. Pelfrey and Humber have shown nothing in the majors, they look like they still need time, to count on both of them along with these other guys is suicidal. now look, if you sign Zito and Glavine the rotation suddenly looks good and deep, but neither is on board yet and right now the Mets rotation looks like it belongs in Norfolk (its gonna take some time for me to get used to saying New Orleans btw)

iramets Nov 30 2006 03:14 PM

I think I've been unclear. Let me try again. You've already got Hernandez and Pedro signed. A mistake to do that? Maybe, but it's done. You're planning to get, what, 40, 45 starts from those two pitchers? Pick a number that makes sense to you and go with it, but it's got to be close to 40-45, or else you're just throwing money around like it's nothing. Counting on Maine, Perez and Bannister to give you another 70-75 starts between them is reasonable. That leaves you with just 42 to 52 more starts, I want a good, top-rate starter to get most of those (and Pelfrey and Humber to get the rest, and to fill in when someone goes down with an injury). If your front-line starter is Zito, fine. If it's someone you can get in a trade for Milledge or whoever, fine. But if it's Glavine, I think the staff isn't good enough to win the division. If it's Zito AND Glavine, I think you're planning to do someone (probably Bannister and Perez) out of a real shot at a job, and you're wasting money besides. Give me a maximum figure, please, that you would invest in Glavine for 2007 and 2008. I'd give him 11 million for the two years, and I think he'd walk away from that offer so fast you're probably better off making him no offer at all. He thinks he's a 15-7 pitcher, and I think he's a 12-12 pitcher.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2006 03:41 PM

i'm planning to get 30 starts out of the combination of pedro and el duque, meaning that i'd expect to see about a full season out of el duque, and think very strongly that we should not plan on pedro pitching a meaningful inning in '07 maine, perez, and bannister get me another 60-70, with some help from humber and pelfrey. that leaves room for two starters. not one. i think he leaps headlong into $11M x 2 years. if he gets more, he gets it from a team that is not the new york mets. and wether or not he's a 15-7 pitcher or a 12-12 pitcher depends a lot on the offense. i think he will allow fewer runs than we will score in support of him.

heep Nov 30 2006 03:48 PM

Bottom line is, we have 1 definite starter, and we to add at least one, if not both, Zito and Glavine. Both are very durable. I'll take 1, and be happy with that, but both would make us very deep. Oh yea, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, Perez, Maine, Vargas, will see there share of starts...Its the nature of the position.

Nymr83 Nov 30 2006 04:15 PM

i agree with marathon, any strategy that counts on Pedro in 2007 is a bad strategy. the money is gone already, act like he's not going to be back and be pleasantly suprised if he's able to make a positive contribution in the latter half of the season. counting on Hernandez for 30 starts is a bit overboard too but thats not really the point, the point is what kind of quality do you expect out of those starts? expecting anything better than a whole lot of 5 inning 3 run appearences with a couple of 6 inning 1 run gamnes mixed in (an ERA around 4.50 or higher) is a pipe dream. you say you're counting on Maine, Perez, and Bannister for 75 starts. well fine, i'll count of 25-30 starts out of Maine and i'll hope that we won't be disappointed int heir overall quality, but to count on 20-25 each from Perez and Bannister is a joke, unless you just want the innings without regard to how they are going to perform. this team needs at least TWO starters right now, Zito/Schmidt alone elps but neither can solve the problem. ]Give me a maximum figure, please, that you would invest in Glavine for 2007 and 2008. I'd give him 11 million for the two years, and I think he'd walk away from that offer so fast you're probably better off making him no offer at all. He thinks he's a 15-7 pitcher, and I think he's a 12-12 pitcher. records are in large part a result of run support so they really aren't indicative of his remaining talent. i think Tom Glavine is still a guy who will go out there 30 times and give you an ERA around 3.75-4.00, worth 10 million in this market. i really don't care how much money they give him for 2007, the Mets arent going to hurt themselves with a big 1 year deal, what would worry me is seeing him signed for 2 years with an easy to reach option that kicks in automatically for year 3, i havent heard anything about that. Glavine of course isn't the complete solution to the Mets problems, but with whats out there he's a decent step in the right direction, provided that Mets management doesnt use his resigning as an excuse not to pursue another pitcher (Omar isn't that dumb even if some of his predecessors would have been.) ]Oh yea, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, Perez, Maine, Vargas, will see there share of starts...Its the nature of the position. sure they will, but when you are startig your season by slotting 4 or 5 guys from that list into your rotation you are in VERY bad shape.

Elster88 Nov 30 2006 06:16 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="iramets"] ="Frayed Knot"] ="iramets"]I'd have been comfortable going into the 2007 season with a rotation of Maine and Perez and Bannister and Pelfrey and Humber You do realize that this backs are absolutely ready for prime-time 'win now' offense with 5 unproven, or barely proven, hurlers with even worse in reserve don't you? But you've got Hernandez already signed for 2007, and Pedro's going to get a bunch of starts, and I'm advocating signing Zito, if possible, and/or getting a first rank younger pitcher in a deal. Maine's earned a full shot already, I think Perez has too, and I'd give one to Bannister as well. If one of those falters, you've got Pelfrey, and if another falters you've got Humber. I believe that Glavine is expecting front-line starter money, not completely unreasonably given his w-l record last year, and will try to get at least two years on his next deal. That money could be better spent elsewhere.If we can sign him for middle (or back) of the rotation money, I'd go for that, but I don't believe that's what he's looking for. ok 1 at a time here... so what if you'v got hernandez signed? he's not very good. you can't count on Pedro getting "a bunch of starts" or on those starts being of his usual quality. yeah, Maine has earned a shot. Perez hasn't, one playoff game doesn't make you a #2 starter (as he would be with that circus of a rotation listed above) Perez should ideally be one of several candidates for 4/5. Bannister was smoke and mirrors, like Perez he's a 5th starter candidate not a guy to be relied upon. Pelfrey and Humber have shown nothing in the majors, they look like they still need time, to count on both of them along with these other guys is suicidal. now look, if you sign Zito and Glavine the rotation suddenly looks good and deep, but neither is on board yet and right now the Mets rotation looks like it belongs in Norfolk (its gonna take some time for me to get used to saying New Orleans btw) Wow Nymr. Well done. (sc = zero)

iramets Nov 30 2006 06:54 PM

And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 30 2006 07:13 PM

I don;t know where to start.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2006 07:22 PM

iramets wrote: And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 30 2006 07:24 PM

The implied comparison of Martinez, Hernandez and Glavine to Hook, Craig and Jackson is probably more overstated.

cooby Nov 30 2006 07:53 PM

soupcan wrote: Gammons was on WFAN this afternoon and he said that 'the word out of Atlanta is' that Glavine's preference is to pitch for the Braves but there's a question as to whether or not the Braves can come up with enough money to make it worth his while. Good riddance I say. I don't understand all the hullabaloo. He's an above average 41 year-old 5 inning pitcher. Yes it would force the Mets to overpay for Zito but so what? I look forward to the easy wins against Atlanta next year with Glavine on the mound. I read this this morning and meant to ask---how is Gammons? I've been wondering, and apparently he's back to work? That's good news, if so.

metirish Nov 30 2006 07:54 PM

cooby wrote: ="soupcan"]Gammons was on WFAN this afternoon and he said that 'the word out of Atlanta is' that Glavine's preference is to pitch for the Braves but there's a question as to whether or not the Braves can come up with enough money to make it worth his while. Good riddance I say. I don't understand all the hullabaloo. He's an above average 41 year-old 5 inning pitcher. Yes it would force the Mets to overpay for Zito but so what? I look forward to the easy wins against Atlanta next year with Glavine on the mound. I read this this morning and meant to ask---how is Gammons? I've been wondering, and apparently he's back to work? That's good news, if so. Gammons is back to work,saw him on ESPN, sounded a little groggy but looked good.

patona314 Nov 30 2006 07:56 PM

iramets wrote: And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. uh.... i sort of liked that statement alot. god i miss the kooz

Nymr83 Nov 30 2006 08:51 PM

metsmarathon wrote: ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year. well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway?

patona314 Nov 30 2006 09:07 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="metsmarathon"] ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year. well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway? you make it sound like it could never happen again...it could. their is talent in this group of baby sp's we currently have. unfortunatley for us, we might have to grow through their growing pains with them. Humber in particular.

patona314 Nov 30 2006 09:10 PM

patona314 wrote: ="Nymr83"] ="metsmarathon"] ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year. well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway? you make it sound like it could never happen again...it could. their is talent in this group of baby sp's we currently have. unfortunately for us, we might have to grow through their growing pains with them. Humber in particular.

patona314 Nov 30 2006 09:13 PM

sorry, i tried to make a correction and double posted. my bad

cleonjones11 Nov 30 2006 09:55 PM

patona314 wrote: patona314 wrote: ="Nymr83"] ="metsmarathon"] ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year. well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway? you make it sound like it could never happen again...it could. their is talent in this group of baby sp's we currently have. unfortunately for us, we might have to grow through their growing pains with them. Humber in particular. Wrong,,,he;s saying one or 2 of our kids might breakout

cleonjones11 Nov 30 2006 09:59 PM

Glavine 300 wins as a Bravo.. HOF in Braves hat..he want to be in Alpharetta GA with wifey and kids His Met days..mostly medicore.. are OVA LIMA TIME!

Frayed Knot Nov 30 2006 10:17 PM

Just when you think the conversation can't possibly get any dumber ... and then along comes Jones

iramets Dec 01 2006 03:12 AM

I guess you guys don't like arguments by exaggeration, huh? If I'd wanted to make a serious case, I would have picked Cardwell and Jack Fisher (who at least pitched on the 1967 Mets with Seaver) as my Glavine comparisons. The point was that we have no idea about the upside of the young guys, but we know what Glavine's extreme upside is, because he just showed it to us last year. Glavine's downside? Well, I remember Warren Spahn's last year in baseball. Not pretty. Season-wrecking Not Pretty. I'm sure you guys realize what we'll get for Glavine if the Braves sign him--a pretty good number 1 pick in the draft and a sandwich pick. Plus his salary can be spent on other immediate needs. That's not too shabby, especially because I think the Braves' pick should be a rather high one. Put another way: if I'd told you four years ago that Glavine would go 48-48 over his 4 year deal, what would your reaction have been if I told you you would then be willing to sign him up for another couple of years at the same rate? You'd have told me I was maligning your intelligence, wouldn't you? Now if I added that by NOT signing him we could get two good draft picks in exchange, because the 41 year old Glavine would have had his best statistical year of the 4 in 2006, you'd have thought it was a bargain to let him go--isn't that true? How about this--if Glavine weren't a Met, if he'd spent the last four years putting up these numbers as a Brave, do you suppose you'd want to sign him at these rates? Don't you think you'd be MUCH more skeptical about signing a guy with a .500 record over the last 4 seasons and expecting him to be your rotation stopper? I do.

iramets Dec 01 2006 06:53 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2006 07:04 AM

The Phillies just signed [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/e/eatonad01.shtml]Adam Eaton[/url] to a contract worth 24.5 mil for 3 years. Eaton is 29 years old last week and has gone 18-9 over the last two years (I assumed he's missed starts for health reasons, but is fine now--LMK if that's wrong). IOW, he's got about the same w-l pct that Glavine had last year over the last two years, he's a lot younger, with a lot more upside, and signed for LESS money than Glavine-fans seem to want to sign Glavine for. I know, he's signed for more years but the years shouldn't count against a 29 year old. In fact, you're trying to lock in a 29 year old, because you don't figure that a guy's arm will burn out at that age. Unless I'm wrong, and Eaton's an injured player the Phillies are gambling on, the value of a Glavine is less than has been stated here. (What I mean by "injured player" is someone who ended the previous season on the DL, whose rehab is questionable, not just someone who's missed time to injury, which Eaton clearly has done.) I don't have a link to the actual transaction, but I just read it on a pop-up summary of the news article. HERE's the link: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/16112423.htm He came back strong after a finger injury in 2005 and early 2006 (7-4 with a lousy ERA though I dont know what Texas does to ERAs.) Note, too, the article points out that the Phillies lost the services of 3b coach Art Howe to Washington, so he's in hot demand around the NL east, I guess, but have no interest in Philly native Mike Piazza.

Nymr83 Dec 01 2006 07:02 AM

Eaton gets hurt alot, thats still a deal i'd have signed though.

MFS62 Dec 01 2006 07:03 AM

Ira, you present a very strong case for not wanting Glavine back (especially atthe salary he would command). No bad for a "rookie" on the board. :) Later

metsmarathon Dec 01 2006 07:57 AM

="iramets"]How about this--if Glavine weren't a Met, if he'd spent the last four years putting up these numbers as a Brave, do you suppose you'd want to sign him at these rates? Don't you think you'd be MUCH more skeptical about signing a guy with a .500 record over the last 4 seasons and expecting him to be your rotation stopper? I do. gosh, a .500 record! well, if that ain't the be all and end all... over the past three seasons, he's averaged a 3.65 ERA, and 207 innings. he played poorly in his first year, but was also on a shitty team, and a slightly less-shitty team the second year. therein lies the answer to his record. the ERA is a far better indication of his abilities than the record. and i don't expect him to be the "stopper" i expect us to bring in a true stopper. and glavine. or somebody else - i'm not picky. the way i look at it, it's not choosing between tom glavine and barry zito or maybe jason schmidt. it's choosing between tom glavine and ted lilly or vicente padilla. and at least there you have a conversation. we need an ace pitcher a the top of the rotation. that pitcher is not tom glavine. we ALSO need another pitcher a step down from there. and that pitcher could be tom glavine, and in my opinion, we'd be foolish to dismiss him.

seawolf17 Dec 01 2006 08:06 AM

Nymr83 wrote: Eaton gets hurt alot, thats still a deal i'd have signed though. Hey, if someone wants to give me that kind of money for three years to do my job, I'd sign that too. I look forward to Eaton racking up a 2-7, 6.48 kind of line against the Mets in the next three years. (Kindly ignore the three gems he pitched against us in '00, '01, and '04.)

iramets Dec 01 2006 08:27 AM

metsmarathon wrote: we'd be foolish to dismiss him. You say "dismiss him" (Johnny Dickshot says "addition by subtraction") as if I was arguing that simply losing Glavine improves the team. It doesn't. Glavine's coming off a good year, and has been a durable pitcher for four seasons. But he's expensive, old, and fetches us two top draft picks. Think "Aaron Heilman" when I say "top draft pick." Think "Scott Kazmir." Think "Phillip Humber." This is not nothing. It's very often high-quality pitching for a low price for a good number of years. This is the type of choice (forget about Glavine for a moment) that the Mets need to be making routinely. My point about starting the kids is not that I know they're all better pitchers in 2007 than Glavine is, it's that we've already got the rotation cluttered with old guys (Hernandez and Pedro) who we're committed to, we're trying to get Zito (and we should), and we've got enough young arms who proven they're ready for a full shot at a starting role to acquire another Heilman, Kazmir, Humber in exchange for Glavine. It's a risk, I understand, but we should be prepared to take some risks to improve the team. Marathon, I think you're looking at Glavine's record both selectively and optimistically. You'll be very disappointed if he pitches like his record over a period of years and not just last year, but that is how you have to regard Glavine's record. He's just not a .700 pitcher anymore, last year aside. He's not even a .600 pitcher, IMO. You could argue that he's better than his .500 record over the past 4 years, but not enough better to make signing him make a whole lot of sense to me.

soupcan Dec 01 2006 08:45 AM

Today's NYTimes December 1, 2006 On Baseball Glavine Reaches a Full Count By MURRAY CHASS Tom Glavine is on the verge of making his decision. “He’s going to make a decision, I would think, by tomorrow,” Gregg Clifton, Glavine’s agent, said yesterday, meaning that today is the day that Glavine should decide if he wants to remain with the Mets for a fifth season or go home to Atlanta, where his 290-victory career began two decades ago. I am not in the habit of telling players what they should do. Where they play, how much they sign for is their prerogative; it’s their career. But I am going to depart from that practice and tell Glavine he should stay with the Mets. Two reasons prompt me to offer that unsolicited advice, professional and personal; professional for Glavine, personal for me. Circumstances can change by the start of next season. But as the Mets and the Braves are presently constituted — and that’s all Glavine can go on — he would probably have an easier time winning 10 games and reaching 300 career victories in New York than he would in Atlanta. Given that he compiled a 33-41 record in his first three years with the mediocre Mets while the Braves were still good enough to win division championships, Glavine made a mistake leaving the Braves. He would probably already have 300 victories had he stayed in Atlanta. But he should not compound that mistake with another. The personal reason? I like Tom Glavine and would like to have him around for the rest of his career. Glavine is one of the classiest players I have met and covered in the nearly half century that I have been writing about baseball. I have known him for more than a dozen years and value the time I have spent talking to him. The Mets, however, need Glavine more than I do. Not that they can’t replace a 41-year-old pitcher, but right now he’s the only established starter they can count on for the start of next season. They think a lot of him, too, as an individual. Newspaper and Internet articles this week have suggested that Glavine has already made his decision and that he wants to play for the Braves. But he has not informed the Mets of such a decision. And Omar Minaya, the Mets’ general manager, said he didn’t believe Glavine would keep information from the team he nearly went to the World Series with last season. “Tommy Glavine isn’t the type of guy who plays those games,” Minaya said yesterday. “The Tommy Glavine I know wouldn’t do that.” According to Clifton, Glavine hasn’t made up his mind. “It’s absolutely untrue,” Clifton said in a telephone interview, adding, “The Mets have been incredibly supportive and understanding of his decision-making process. “I give Omar and the Wilpons credit for the way they’ve handled this,” he said in reference to Fred Wilpon, the Mets’ principal owner, and Jeff Wilpon, the team’s chief operating officer. Clifton said he had had two or three conversations with John Schuerholz, the Braves’ general manager. “Our talks have been cordial,” Clifton said, adding that contrary to some reports, the Braves have not made Glavine an offer. “John has said he’s not in a position to make an offer,” Clifton said. Glavine, of course, would have a problem if he decided he wanted to return to the Braves and they were unable or unwilling to offer him a fair contract. Schuerholz has not acknowledged that he is interested in getting Glavine back, only that he is looking to upgrade the Braves’ pitching. And it’s possible that if Glavine wanted to play for them and the Braves wanted him back, they would first have to make a trade to clear payroll. If Glavine lived in, say, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and not Atlanta, his decision would be easy: stay with the Mets. But it’s the chance to be home for half the season that makes for a difficult choice. Glavine’s family situation compounds his professional problem. He and his wife, Christine, each have a child from a previous marriage, for whom they have shared custody, and they have two children from their marriage. Amber, 11, is Tom’s daughter; Jonathan, 12, is Christine’s son; and Peyton, 7, and Mason, 6, are their sons. Juggling the four children was difficult enough when Glavine was working in Atlanta. Playing in New York created more intricate planning and execution. Yet when Glavine was talking last month about the uncertainty of his plans, he related an interesting story. “When we talk about Dad not playing baseball anymore,” he said, “the first thing they ask is are we going to sell our house in Connecticut, and when I say yes, they get mad at me because they loved it.” Then he added: “I know they still love it up here and enjoy it. But sometimes they struggle with me not being here.” Glavine also talked about the fact that his children were older than they were when he first played for the Mets in 2003, and that their after-school and summer activities, like Little League baseball, are curtailed by their trips to New York. The longer Glavine takes making his decision the more likely, some people think, he will come down on the side of staying home. Others think the opposite, feeling that the longer he takes, the more he realizes how much he has enjoyed playing in New York and how well he has been treated by the Mets. Glavine even appreciates how the Mets haven’t pressured him into making a decision sooner than he wanted. The Mets have talked to Clifton, but they haven’t talked with Glavine or made him an offer in an attempt to lure him with money. At the same time, Glavine doesn’t want to delay his decision indefinitely and make it difficult for the Mets to go forward with their off-season pitching plans. That’s why his decision is imminent, if not today, by the end of the weekend, before the winter meetings start, as he promised.

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2006 08:47 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2006 08:51 AM

]and we've got enough young arms who proven they're ready for a full shot at a starting role to acquire another Heilman, Kazmir, Humber in exchange for Glavine. 1) We get draft picks for Glavine only if we offer - and he subsequently declines - arbitration. I suspect (although don't know) that there may be an existing agreement where they won't offer arb (not an uncommon side deal). IOW, losing him does not equal automatic top picks. 2) Even if we do recieve picks and he winds up signing w/Atlanta, the picks are more likely to be in the mid-30s to mid-50s range overall*. Still nice picks to have but a far cry from the Kazmir, Pelfrey, Humber, Heilman territory which were all top 20 picks (15th, 9th, 3rd & 18th I believe) and very unlikely to produce the same caliber of player. * (Braves finished in the bottom half of all teams meaning that their 1st round pick is protected from being lost. We'd instead get their 2nd round pick -- or maybe 3rd if they sign someone else; see the 'Bradford' thread for more explanation -- in addition to the 'sandwich' pick.)

metsmarathon Dec 01 2006 08:48 AM

you miss my point about the record. i tend to ignore wins and losses by a pitcher - they tell me little about how good he really was or wasn't, instead telling me more about how good his team was and how much run support he got. and these are hardly things i think we should be basing personnel decisions on. you make a good point with the draft picks. they are a valuable commodity, and are important to the future of the team. i think there's a fair amount of confusion in this thread. namely, i have no idea what you want our offseason pitching acquisitions to look like. do you feel that the team would be better served by adding one or two veteran pitchers to what we've already got on the books? instead of framing this argument around tom glavine specifically, i'm actually more interested in the generality for a moment. i think i'm correct in saying that we both want the mets to sign barry zito (or consolation prize jason schmidt, to a shorter commitment). where my confusion comes in is whether you think the team needs to bring in another pitcher to the mix - be that pitcher ted lilly, vicente padilla, jeff suppan, tom glavine, whoever - or do you think that if we get zito, then our rotation is set. see, i think that we need another pitcher after the top line guy. i don't expect to get more that one full starter between pedro and el duque. that leaves us three holes in the rotation. maybe maine fills one of them - but he's no given, and i don't that he's all that highly thought of in the baseball world. i think that we have enough question marks for two spots in the rotation, and do not want to go into 2007 thinking that i'm going to need pelfrey or humber to step up big time. because, really, rookie pitchers don't often do all that well, no matter what their upside. i think we'll be lucky if two of the young guys can contribute meaningfully and positively to the 2007 mets. as for 2008, i expect we'll get a full season between pedro and el duque again, with pedro hopefully getting the lion's share this time. so that still leaves us with plenty of room for the young guys then, too.

heep Dec 01 2006 09:17 AM

I got a feeling: Tommy signs a 1 year deal for 10 million, option for 2 with the M E T S this weekend. Don't ask why

TheOldMole Dec 01 2006 09:33 AM

Sounds right to me.

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2006 12:55 PM

The Glavine camp is apparently saying decision by Monday.

Willets Point Dec 01 2006 01:13 PM DPMJFL

Glavine has a camp? He's not demanding that his contract include a tent is he?

Johnny Dickshot Dec 01 2006 01:19 PM

I think he gets a Boy Scout too. Oh, wait, that's A-rod. Later

seawolf17 Dec 01 2006 01:20 PM Re: DPMJFL

Willets Point wrote: Glavine has a camp? He's not demanding that his contract include a tent is he? He has a camp; he doesn't need a tent, he has one. What he wants is more cooking gear and a big jug of fresh water.

Edgy DC Dec 01 2006 01:22 PM

The friends I made at Camp Glavine...

HahnSolo Dec 01 2006 01:39 PM

Nothing could beat the weekly Questec bonfire...

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2006 01:41 PM

"This one time in Glavine camp ... "

Willets Point Dec 01 2006 02:20 PM

Quotes from Kamp Glavine: "Oh! They drove a dumptruck full of money up to my house. I'm not made of stone! But I'm going to make it up to you kids. I'm going to take you to the happiest place on Earth...Tijuana!"

TransMonk Dec 01 2006 02:23 PM

Evidentally, ESPN News is reporting he will be back in NY for $11 mil in 2007 with an option for 2008. Neither ESPN.com nor any other website is reporting it. On edit: [url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/12/01/bc.bbn.mets.glavine.ap/index.html]SI.com[/url] confirms, but for $10.5mil. Newsday says the Mets will have a telephone news conference at 4:50.

iramets Dec 01 2006 03:07 PM

metsmarathon wrote: you miss my point about the record. i tend to ignore wins and losses by a pitcher - they tell me little about how good he really was or wasn't, instead telling me more about how good his team was and how much run support he got. and these are hardly things i think we should be basing personnel decisions on. you make a good point with the draft picks. they are a valuable commodity, and are important to the future of the team. i think there's a fair amount of confusion in this thread. namely, i have no idea what you want our offseason pitching acquisitions to look like. . first paragraph-- w-l is meaningless, I agree in short spans, even up to a season, but when you've 4 years, or an entire career to look at, stuff like run support, quality of team generally, usually balances out at least partway. Over a career, W-L is a pretty good standard, for example, in HOF discussions. I think the data that he's gone 48-48 n a Met uniform is meaningful. I also think that if he'd gone 58-38, his supporters would be citing it as valid. second paragraph--I didn't realize the stuff Frayed Knot mentioned about the picks being less valuable if the team giving them up was really bad. I thought the Braves' bad year made them MORE valuable to have. third paragraph--I want the Mets' rotation to have fewer grey hairs in 2007. Zito or someone close to Zito in age and quality--get him, by hook or crook or free agency or trade. Give Maine a full shot at a rotation spot. Give Perez and Bannister shots as well. Finally let me explain another thing I have against giving questec marks like Glavine expensive contracts. That not only obligates you to play him, it also obligates you to keep playing him no matter how badly he sucks. If Maine sucks, you'll jerk him from the rotation after ten bad starts. Glavine gets --well, I don;t know how many starts, but at 10 mil, it takes a lot of bad starts to get him out of the rotation, probably more than a season's worth.. That's why I'm pretty sure Pedro will get at least 15 starts--I've heard no rational arguments that his injury will keep him on the DL much past June, and once he returns (barring further injury) there's no level of suckiness that he can pitch at that will cause him to be removed from the rotation. If Pedro has a single qualilty start in his first 10, a record of 1-6 and an ERA over 5, Willie will keep handing him the ball. Same with Glavine. A lesser starter will get demoted, and the season possibly rescued, but with a 10+ mil contract, we'll keep riding a pitcher straight down the toilet.

metirish Dec 01 2006 03:16 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 01 2006 03:30 PM

SNY is saying Glav is singed..... signed even...

iramets Dec 01 2006 03:23 PM

and so are my eyebrows.

Nymr83 Dec 01 2006 03:26 PM

good. now get me zito.

iramets Dec 01 2006 03:41 PM

I'll get you a whole plate of ziti. You want parmeggiano on that? I'll also get Brian Bannister the giant sized cannister of Vaseline, cuz it looks like he's going to need it.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 01 2006 03:54 PM

]A lesser starter will get demoted, and the season possibly rescued, By whom? A lesser starter than him? ]but with a 10+ mil contract, we'll keep riding a pitcher straight down the toilet. Cuz you say we will? Depth is a good thing.

iramets Dec 01 2006 04:03 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]A lesser starter will get demoted, and the season possibly rescued, By whom? A lesser starter than him? ]but with a 10+ mil contract, we'll keep riding a pitcher straight down the toilet. Cuz you say we will? Depth is a good thing. A "lesser" starter is a starter paid significantly less than 10 mil. But you probably knew that already. Name me the last starter getting paid a fortune (more than 10 mil) who got jerked from the rotation, please, on any club. Randy Johnson? Nope, the Yankees would have rode him down the swirling water. Mike Hampton? Nope, stayed in the rotation until he hurt himself. It just doesn't ahpppen. Once a club has sunk its budget and its hopes in a guy, there's no white flag, the whole season just becomes a disaster. Being free to bench bad players and promote good ones is also a good thing.

patona314 Dec 01 2006 04:04 PM

Zito/Boras was in texas this week visiting the rangers. two thing came to mind... a-rod and chan ho park. both owned by boras. the rangers have lost 4/5 players to free agency already, which means the rangers have some extra cash. Hicks is going to throw a ton of $$$ at zito/boras. not a good sign for our beloved mets.

metsguyinmichigan Dec 01 2006 04:29 PM

I'm glad Glavine is back. I think his march to 300 will be wonderful for all of us. Will this be the biggest milestone reached by a Mets player (while actually on the Mets, as opposed to Seaver's 300th?) While Pedro's 200th, Carter's 300 bomb, Delgado's 400th blast all were fun, it's not the same as a 300 win/500 homer/3,000 hit kind of thing. As for Zito, you gotta figure the Texas trip is just to drive the price up, knowing that Hicks will throw big money around. SI did a great story years back about the details of the A-Rod signing, how Boras played these guys for fools when they were essentially bidding against themselves. Boras doesn't leave money on the table, but hopefully the ARod signing -- and his dissatisfaction there after a couple years -- will show Zito that while it's fun to cash those checks, it's not everything.

SteveJRogers Dec 01 2006 04:34 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I'm glad Glavine is back. I think his march to 300 will be wonderful for all of us. Will this be the biggest milestone reached by a Mets player (while actually on the Mets, as opposed to Seaver's 300th?) While Pedro's 200th, Carter's 300 bomb, Delgado's 400th blast all were fun, it's not the same as a 300 win/500 homer/3,000 hit kind of thing. Funny, that sounds like a "Yankee Thing" to do. I thought we weren't the Yankees. It'd be nice to stick on the media guide cover, but really, who gives a rump what uniform the players wears with the exception of if he wears it with the team he is mostly associated with.

SteveJRogers Dec 01 2006 04:35 PM

And yes I know I did that whole countdown thread, but still, should that really be THAT big of a deal for fans?

OlerudOwned Dec 01 2006 04:37 PM

Since when has Glavine sucked? That's the only thing that's puzzling me. He seemed good laast year.

SteveJRogers Dec 01 2006 04:38 PM

ESPN is reporting it as well, 1 year 10.5 mil [url]http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2682818[/url]

Johnny Dickshot Dec 01 2006 05:44 PM

] A "lesser" starter is a starter paid significantly less than 10 mil. But you probably knew that already. Considering the argument was framed as bad news for Bannister, I kinda assumed that's the caliber of player you were discussing. Look, I'm far from Glavine's biggest fan here, I could care less about the payroll, and think the Mets could certrainly make it without him. I only jumped in when it looked like there were arguments being made that being without him would be a huge boon to the club. I just don't see that. I also think that were they not paying Glavine 10 mills a year it wouldn't be Bannister who'd benefit but Gil Meche or Padilla or Batista or another guy who'd provide something you can pencil in (@$7M or $8M for 3 or 4 years, btw) since I believe the Mets are going to give it their best shot from the get-go rather than gambling on 3 or 4 youngsters with less to back them up. After a shaky '03 Glavine's been pretty strong (his ERA well above league average), so I guess we'll have to confront the questions of what happenens when he collapses when he collapses. I will say I don't think the Yankees' experiences with Johnson (committed to another year and with nothing in the cupboard to replace him) makes much of a case. Kaz Matsui was paid pretty well by the Mets last year.

iramets Dec 01 2006 05:49 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: [Kaz Matsui was paid pretty well by the Mets last year. Kaz Matsui? The Mets continued to play him for years--years!--after he demonstrated that he was an awful mistake in judgment on their part, but when they still owed him a huge salary. He's your poster boy for someone who was demoted despite being owed a huge salary? The defense rests, your honor.

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2006 06:05 PM

It shouldn't. You can't, on the one hand, claim that teams don't drop players with big salaries and then dismiss it when an example comes by showing that they do. Matsui was kept on for two+ years on account of various reasons; injuries, a hope that his ship would right itself (he showed glimpses of it the 1st year), a lack of suitable alternatives. Of course contract terms factor into decisions, but when Valentin took over the job last year (weeks after fans were calling for HIM to be dumped) the Mets quickly ate nearly $8mil on Kaz's final year rather than keep him in there after a better replacement was apparent. Similar to the way the team did with Cedeno (2 yrs & ~ $10mil), Ordonez ($6-ish) and Bonilla (also ~ $6) just to name 4 examples from one team over the last few years.

KC Dec 01 2006 06:11 PM

I think if Glavine or Pedro sucked for a good stretch for whatever reason they'd solve the problem by finding a way out of the rotation themselves. It won't be Rick's problem, or Willie's dilema, or Omar's ass, or Wilpon's wallet making that decision. To me, the whole drama turned out well enough. They didn't lock him up for two years and if he provides them a decent #2 or #3 guy for 3/4's of a sea- son ... nicely done.

metirish Dec 01 2006 06:15 PM

If Glavine stays healthy then his player option will be easily reached,if he reaches 160 innings then the option kicks in for $6M and for every 10 innings after that he gets $1M to a max of ten Million.

KC Dec 01 2006 06:42 PM

So, I'm a little off. It still doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me and cer- tainly not worthy of half the drama in this thread. There's no way Tom or Petey pitch for any prolonged stretch in an embarassing fashion just to collect a paycheck or because the Mets think they have to keep rolling them out because of money.

Nymr83 Dec 01 2006 10:21 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: And yes I know I did that whole countdown thread, but still, should that really be THAT big of a deal for fans? if he had won most or all of those 300 as a Met i'd make a deal out of it, sure. but considering that 240+ of those wins came for the arch-rival braves i don't really care care to celebrate his 300th. ="iramets"]Kaz Matsui? The Mets continued to play him for years--years!--after he demonstrated that he was an awful mistake in judgment on their part, but when they still owed him a huge salary. He's your poster boy for someone who was demoted despite being owed a huge salary? The defense rests, your honor. I'm the biggest Matsui-hater on the board, they made a huge mistake in signing him... but given the talent on in the organization, continuing to play him was not an awful decision (it wasn't a particularly good one either, but there was nobody waiting who could have done much better.) if the defense rests the judge should instruct the jury "please dont make us pay for another lunch before you find for the plaintiff"

iramets Dec 02 2006 03:32 AM

KC wrote: So, I'm a little off. It still doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me and cer- tainly not worthy of half the drama in this thread. There's no way Tom or Petey pitch for any prolonged stretch in an embarassing fashion just to collect a paycheck or because the Mets think they have to keep rolling them out because of money. Why would they take themselves out of the rotation? Pride? Can you name me the last time a ballplayer volunteered to be demoted, despite the contrary views of management, because he felt he no longer deserved his playing time? I didn't say that Johnny Dickshot couldn't possibly supply me with a ballplayer whose salary eventually got eaten. But Frayed Knot gave away his defense of Matsui when he admits that "Of course contract terms factor into decisions," That's all I'm saying. I don't think we disagree with the concept that Matsui got SOME extra time because of the Mets' investment in him. You say it's weeks or days maybe, I say it's months or years maybe, but the principle is the same: he played past the point he needed to ride the bench purely because of his contract. A club will always trot out the same face-saving excuses, of course, and Frayed Knot supplies those, too: Matsui was "injured", sometimes without the quotes, glimpses of promise (every ballplayer does something right sometimes, of course) a lack of suitable alternatives (which they never tried, so could we know that they were suitable or not?) But the bottom line is that Matsui played past the point where his quality of play deserved benching. You may argue that inserting the word "long" after the word "past" is unwarranted, but it works for me. Same point with KC: you're not arguing, I hope, that Glavine or Pedro get the same exact amount of slack cut for them stinking up the joint that Maine or Perez would get. They get an extra start or two or three, don't they, based on their track record, their years of service, their veteran status? Call it what you will, for me it's basically about the money, and I say they get many more starts, an almost limitless number, as excuses are trotted out: Pedro might be injured, Glavine's tired, Pedro's game last month wasn't TOO shabby if you interpret it like this, Glavine's been throwing from the wrong side of the rubber and it's been hard getting that small point across to him, Pedro's elbow may be acting up again, etc. eventually the season ends, with management shaking their heads and publicly proclaiming "We're puzzled but we expect Pom (or Tedro) to come back strong next season" or however long their contract runs through. Money changes everything, even the truth. Anyway, I think this discussion has been worth at least 30% of the drama it has caused. Now that Glavine's signed, I'll just express my hope that it works out, and my thanks that it's limited to a year unless he pitches 160 innings, and wish Brian Bannister the best of luck at Norfolk (or Cleveland or Hades) this season.

KC Dec 02 2006 06:57 AM

Im: >>>Why would they take themselves out of the rotation? Pride? Can you name me the last time a ballplayer volunteered to be demoted, despite the contrary views of management, because he felt he no longer deserved his playing time?<<< Particularly in Pedro's case, yes, pride. He's already said that he won't re- turn if not 100% and I'm sure if he was the weak link in a rotation that was in the middle of a pennant race he'd find a way out. I don't know why I'm lumping Glavine in with Pedro, but I can't see him taking a beating for too long either. As for former players, I can't think of any HOF pitchers who were on the their last legs (that were on good teams) that sucked and were costing their team games and contention and retired ... doesn't mean this won't come to pass for Martinez or Glavine.

iramets Dec 02 2006 07:41 AM

KC wrote: I'm sure if he was the weak link in a rotation that was in the middle of a pennant race he'd find a way out. I don't know why I'm lumping Glavine in with Pedro, but I can't see him taking a beating for too long either. As for former players, I can't think of any HOF pitchers who were on the their last legs (that were on good teams) that sucked and were costing their team games and contention and retired ... doesn't mean this won't come to pass for Martinez or Glavine. Pride cuts the other way, more often than you suggest, forcing players into unrealistic positions based on their past achievements. "You think this is bad? Huh. I've come back from worse than this before..." If pride operated on Glavine as you suggest, wouldn't the guy have retired at several points in his Met career? The evening of July 24, 2003, four months into being a Met. He was sporting a 5.15 ERA and a 6-11 w-l record--wouldn't a proud warrior have assessed that performance as unworthy of his fine record, and quit? Oh, he was RIGHT not to quit then? He DID come back from that hole he was in and pitch better? That's true, although it's hard to see how he could have pitched much worse, but if that four months of pitching didn't persuade him to salvage his pride, I wonder what level of poor pitching would have spoken to his pride. I submit "Ain't no such animal." Willie Mays was on his last legs when he made his "Goodbye to America" speech. That's the last time I remember a player self-assessing when his team was willing to pay him to go on. Maybe Mike Schmidt showed some pride in retiring when he did. But mostly it's "The .195 average had nothing to do with it, but the nine hamstring pulls in two weeks just presented too high a barrier for me..."

KC Dec 02 2006 08:26 AM

Tad of a difference between having three and half years left on a contract and being signed one year to an incentive laden deal this year wit the pro- spect of retiring on the near horizon. Proud warrior, you're funny.

silverdsl Dec 02 2006 09:09 AM

iramets wrote: ="KC"]So, I'm a little off. It still doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me and cer- tainly not worthy of half the drama in this thread. There's no way Tom or Petey pitch for any prolonged stretch in an embarassing fashion just to collect a paycheck or because the Mets think they have to keep rolling them out because of money. Why would they take themselves out of the rotation? Pride? Can you name me the last time a ballplayer volunteered to be demoted, despite the contrary views of management, because he felt he no longer deserved his playing time? I can't help but think of David Cone when he was with the Yankees in his final year. He looked lost on the mound, looked like he was ready to cry at times when things went bad, and just flatout stunk. But he still went out there every start, even though it was obvious to all that he was no longer able to pitch well. These guys have a tremendous amount of hubris, and besides that pitching and the game of baseball is all they've known their entire lives. It's difficult to face not being able to perform like they once were on the mound or at the plate, and the reality that their careers might be nearing their end. Sometimes older pitchers like Randy Johnson did this season will talk about retiring if they can't pitch well, but I don't really think they're too serious about it. It's easy for us to evaluate a pitcher and their failings, much harder for that pitcher to look at themselves and what they're capable of realistically. I always cringe when it comes to teams signing or re-signing older pitchers. No matter their accomplishments of the past, there's a risk of injury and decline, so I hate to see big money, multi-year deals handed out to older pitchers. However, I think the Mets did pretty good here with their deal with Glavine.

iramets Dec 02 2006 09:42 AM

I just think this whole "pride" thing is mostly silly and mostly fictional. Few athletes can sincerely get into a mindset where they no longer believe in their abilities--they've spent decades steeling themselves against getting down on themselves, and it's often a few years into retirement that they accept the reality of their diminished skill, which I wouldn't have any other way. The team, of course, can just tell them "Grab some pine," but often the team has a stake in their coming back against the odds--the team, after all, staked all those millions on the athlete's enduring talent. They dont want to look like wasteful sprendthrifts and poor judges of talent, either. Look at what you're saying here: Pedro with two years (?) remaining on his contract has too much pride to pitch poorly this season and next and would rather quit than play at non-Pedro levels, because of his pride, but Glavine shouldn't even be thinking about quitting when he has three years to go on his contract. Is it about pride or about the length of your contract? You should walk away from 20 million for the sake of pride, but for 30 million, you must keep struggling on? I need some kind of Pride Rulebook here.

Frayed Knot Dec 02 2006 10:16 AM

You also need a wee bit of perspective here. The example (and a theoretical one at that) that KC is talking about involves a scenario where Pedro might decide that he can't come back from a fairly serious injury & surgery. I agree that the odds against that are real long but that's still the length of a Piazza HR away from suggesting that Glavine c/should have done the same back when he was hitting a rough patch for part of a season 4 years back while trying to adjust to the new Questec/K-Zone. Kinda similar to the one where you were likening Seaver/Koos/Ryan to Humber/Pelfrey/Bannister and Hook/Craig to Pedro/Glavine. Analogy by gross exaggeration doesn't always make the point stronger. In any case, it turns out that Glavine is NOT going to be making the kind of "Ace" money that his detractors feared (might be half to 2/3 of what Zito/Schmidt get) nor is the deal the kind of lengthy one that makes teams reluctant to pull the plug if/when he bombs.

iramets Dec 02 2006 10:46 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: a scenario where Pedro might decide that he can't come back from a fairly serious injury & surgery. . Yeah, if he goes all Dave Dravecky on your ass and is reduced to blowing on the ball to get it to the plate, he might retire, but otherwise he'll pitch (or go on the DL) until his contract runs out, and keep insisting he can do the job if they'll just keep giving him the ball. The only way I see the Mets not renewing Glavine's contract is 1) if he pitches badly AND the Mets are eliminated from the WIld Card before he has his 160 IP (very improbable). Otherwise, they'll keep putting him out there no matter how badly he pitches, even if he's killing their season. If they gave Kaz two years as an ineffectual starter, they'll give Glavine at least a full season. OR 2) If he goes something like 11-16, breaking 300 wins, with a high ERA and decides to retire, also improbable.

metsmarathon Dec 02 2006 11:15 AM

iramets wrote: I think the data that he's gone 48-48 n a Met uniform is meaningful. during the time he was in a mets uniform, the mets lost 13 more games than they won. that context makes glavine's record more meaningful, and means that if he were on a better team, he would have won more games. ]I also think that if he'd gone 58-38, his supporters would be citing it as valid. if he had gome 58-38 for bad tems, then yes. if he had gone 58-38 on a team that won 100 games every year, then it wouldn't be terribly great shakes, now would it? citing a pitcher's record absent the context of the team with which that record was achieved is meaningless, whether it supports my position on a pitcher or does not. ]third paragraph--I want the Mets' rotation to have fewer grey hairs in 2007. Zito or someone close to Zito in age and quality--get him, by hook or crook or free agency or trade. Give Maine a full shot at a rotation spot. Give Perez and Bannister shots as well. i want the mets rotation to allow fewer runs in 2007. please, that means barry zito. maine deserves a shot. perrez and bannister can battle it out. between them, i'm not sure we have a complete pitcher. ]That's why I'm pretty sure Pedro will get at least 15 starts--I've heard no rational arguments that his injury will keep him on the DL much past June serious injury, expensive player with another expensive year on his contract, player considered by some to be fragile, rotation hopefully won't need him to step in. the mets are a better team if they don't need to rush pedro back. taking them one at a time... pedro went down with a serious injury. one that usually takes about a full year to recover from, but optimism allows you to suggest that he could be back in june. reality is an entirely different thing than optimism. the reality is that hopefully he will be back to his old self in 2008. and hte best chance for that, and the mets know this, is if he does not rush back from injury and try to pitch while his body isn't ready. which leads me to my second point. pedro is expensive, and has 2008 on his contract. if the mets rush him back, or allow him to rush back, in 2007, when his arm isnt ready, tehn they run a terrific risk of either having him unavailble for 2008, or simply ineffective. it is more worth their money to let him rest up and be ready to play 2008 healthy, than to try to hurry him into the rotation for 2007. i'm not sure if pedro's fragile reputation, which mightn't be earned nor deserved, will really factor into the mets decisions or not, but it might factor into yours when you consider whether or not you think pedro will be healed in time for 2007. the more holes, the more question marks we have in our rotation, the more antsy the mets are going to get about brining pedro back. without glavine and (hopefully) zito, the mets could see young pitcher after young pitcher falter and fail, and, seeing their season slip away between their fingers, could end up doing somethign stupid, like rush pedro. and finally, if the mets have a solid enough rotation, with zito (again, hopefully), glavine, el duque, maine, and one of perez, bannister, etc flourishing in the 5th spot, we'll be likely having a commanding season, and won't NEED to rush pedro back into the rotation. maybe we can have him put in some innings in the pen to get his game back for late in the season, and have him in our back pockets as a late season/postseason secret weapon. or whatever metaphor makes better sense. but you get my drift, i assume. that the mets WILL rush pedro back is an assumption that i don't think has all too much merit. not if they don't need to. and his salary is only more of a reason not to rush him, than it is to bring him back too early.

iramets Dec 02 2006 11:26 AM

I don't know if you were saying this or not, but a lot of Mets fans were saying that Pedro was indispensable to the team's chances. Now that he's hurt, I'm hearing a lot of "Oh, we don't really need Pedro in 2007, it would be nice to have him, of course, but this is no big deal." When he started talking being back by June, was the coverage mostly "This is foolhardy and unlikely, because when X and Y and Z went down with the same injury they missed a year," or was it taken at face value? I don't remember him getting much flak on being back by June. Also if he misses the whole year, it's pretty likely that he's simply finished, no? That was a hell of a lot of money to pay for two partial years.

Zvon Dec 02 2006 11:39 AM

] Glavine's deal calls for a $7.5 million salary next year and contains a $9 million player option for 2008 that would become guaranteed if he pitches 160 innings next season. The price of the option would increase by $1 million for each additional 10 innings up to a maximum price of $13 million. If the option isn't exercised, he gets a $3 million buyout. Glavines back. Excellent. Braves didnt even offer him a deal.

Edgy DC Dec 04 2006 09:18 AM

Reportedly, on being told of the return to the Mets, Glavine's son Peayton "jumped out of his seat with excitement."

Vic Sage Dec 04 2006 01:29 PM

Does anybody else think that Ira's rhetorical style is reminiscent of a heretofore former forumite? Doc, is that you?

Rotblatt Dec 04 2006 01:38 PM

Vic Sage wrote: Does anybody else think that Ira's rhetorical style is reminiscent of a heretofore former forumite? Yes.

metsmarathon Dec 04 2006 01:38 PM

nah. i don't buy it.

metirish Dec 04 2006 02:01 PM

Vic Sage wrote: Does anybody else think that Ira's rhetorical style is reminiscent of a heretofore former forumite? Doc, is that you? Who is Doc,don't we only have one Doc?...

metsmarathon Dec 04 2006 02:21 PM

"doc", in this case, means "doc g", the mofo handle of he whom we might know better as "sal q" and if you're new enough to not even know who sal is, then don't even worry about it. its not sal tho. there's no caustic fucktardiness.

metsmarathon Dec 04 2006 02:29 PM

iramets wrote: I don't know if you were saying this or not, but a lot of Mets fans were saying that Pedro was indispensable to the team's chances. he was. or at least we thought he was. not having him for most of last season showed that we could win without him, or that by not having him didn't necessarily mean that we couldn't win. ]Now that he's hurt, I'm hearing a lot of "Oh, we don't really need Pedro in 2007, it would be nice to have him, of course, but this is no big deal." 'tis true. mostly because we know we won't have him well enough in advance of the start of the season that we can plan around his absence and build a rotation, hopefully, that treats any eventual appearance by pedro as a bonus, and not a necessity. ]When he started talking being back by June, was the coverage mostly "This is foolhardy and unlikely, because when X and Y and Z went down with the same injury they missed a year," or was it taken at face value? i dunno what the coverage was. i assumed from the get go that we wouldn't see him in '07, and i hope the mets do too. ] I don't remember him getting much flak on being back by June. nor should he for looking optimistically upon his hopes of recovery. ]Also if he misses the whole year, it's pretty likely that he's simply finished, no? That was a hell of a lot of money to pay for two partial years. i don't think that's the case at all. if he misses the whole year, it really only means that he misses the year. i mean, if he misses the year because he comes back from the surgery and his arm never feels right, or doesn't heal right, or he's got neither strength nor endurance in his shoulder, then, yes, that bodes ill for the remainder of his career. but i don't think that missing a year, even at his age necessarily means anything about his chances of returning to any specific level of ability. maybe i'm wrong, but that's simply because i'm not going out and looking for either anecdotal or comprehensive eveidence either way.

SteveJRogers Dec 04 2006 03:07 PM

metsmarathon wrote: "doc", in this case, means "doc g", the mofo handle of he whom we might know better as "sal q" and if you're new enough to not even know who sal is, then don't even worry about it. its not sal tho. there's no caustic fucktardiness. He did jump down my throat when I posted my Met HOF thingy much in the same way Bret took Val to the woodshed a year ago based on the nickname thread Hmmmmm... =;)

Johnny Dickshot Dec 04 2006 03:27 PM

Not a chance. Move along.

KC Dec 04 2006 03:36 PM

I'd wager my last nickle that he's back.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 04 2006 03:38 PM

You're on for .05.

Nymr83 Dec 04 2006 04:07 PM

can the admins confirm/deny something like that (assuming he was accessing the site from the same place?) the date he joined the forum is suspicious too.

KC Dec 04 2006 04:35 PM

Someone should start a Zito pool. When? How much? How long? Don't look at the blue bar.